Citation Nr: 0202753
Decision Date: 03/25/02 Archive Date: 04/04/02
DOCKET NO. 01-07 671 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery,
Alabama
THE ISSUE
Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to
reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for viral
hepatitis, and if so, whether service connection is
warranted.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: The American Legion
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Stanley Grabia, Counsel
REMAND
The veteran had honorable service from December 1972 to
December 1976.
This appeal is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
from a November 2000 decision of the Montgomery, Alabama, VA
Regional Office (RO).
In a November 2001 letter, the Board notified the veteran
that he had been scheduled to appear at a hearing in January
2002 before a Member of the Board and that the hearing would
be held in Washington, DC. Unfortunately, the letter was not
mailed to the correct address and the veteran did not report
for the scheduled hearing.
In a communication dated March 8, 2002, the veteran's
representative indicated that the veteran was unable to
report for the hearing scheduled for January 2002 because the
notice was sent to the wrong address. The representative
stated that the veteran is requesting a video conference
hearing at which he would be present at the RO in Montgomery,
Alabama.
Inasmuch as the veteran will be present at the RO for the
hearing, the RO must arrange for the date of the hearing in
accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(a).
To ensure full compliance with due process requirements, the
case is REMANDED to the RO for the following development:
The RO should schedule the veteran for a
video-conference hearing at the RO before
a Member of the Board who will be in
Washington, D.C.
The Board intimates no opinion as to the outcome of this
case. The veteran need take no further action until he is so
informed.
The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and
argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded to
the regional office. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369
(1999).
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO.
The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the
Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or
other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious
manner. See The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994,
Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994),
38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West Supp. 2000) (Historical and
Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure
Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide
expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by
the Board and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44-
8.45 and 38.02-38.03.
Gary L. Gick
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991 & Supp. 2001), only a
decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to
the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This
remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not
constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your
appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2001).